N. Personnel matters.

Government meetings relating to certain individual personnel decisions may be closed, provided personal information about the employee is discussed or recorded:

· hiring of an employee of a public governmental body, and

· firing of an employee of a public governmental body, and

· disciplining an employee of a public governmental body, and

· promoting an employee of a public governmental body.

The above meetings may be closed only if personal information about the employee is discussed or recorded. "Personal" information is defined to include information relating to the performance or merit of individual employees.

Any vote on a final decision made by a public governmental body, to hire, fire, promote or discipline one of its employees shall be made available to the public within 72 hours of the close of the meeting where such action occurs, provided, however, that the affected employee is entitled to prompt notice of the decision before such decision is made available to the public. See Wolfskill v. Henderson, 823 S.W.2d 112, 114 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991) (holding that police department internal investigative reports not subject to disclosure under the Sunshine Law); Paskon v. Salem Memorial Hospital District, 806 S.W.2d 417, 423-424 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991) (holding that board of directors of hospital district could conduct closed meeting to discuss suspension of physician's hospital staff privileges); Librach v. Cooper, 778 S.W.2d 351 (Mo.Ct.App. 1989) (holding that records reflecting severance pay paid to former superintendent of public school district are public records subject to disclosure under the Sunshine Law); Tipton v. Barton, 747 S.W.2d 325, 331 (Mo.Ct.App. 1988) (mere identification of personnel matters within a description of legal services rendered on a city attorney's itemized monthly billing statement is not sufficient to place the statement within the employment exception); Hudson v. School District of Kansas City, 578 S.W.2d 301, 309 (Mo.Ct.App. 1979) (meeting in which school board decided to furlough several hundred probationary teachers and reassign a large number of administrative employees did not fall within the employment exception because the impelling motivation was financial. The Board was attempting to solve a huge budget deficit. The individual employees affected were not discussed); Wilson v. McNeal, 575 S.W.2d 802, 806 (Mo.Ct.App. 1978) (police department report on investigation into death of man in police custody could be closed record under the employment exception because the investigation could have led to disciplining of employees).